One of the horror genre's "most widely read critics" (Rue Morgue # 68), "an accomplished film journalist" (Comic Buyer's Guide #1535), and the award-winning author of Horror Films of the 1980s (2007), The Rock and Roll Film Encyclopedia (2007) and Horror Films of the 1970s (2002), John Kenneth Muir, presents his blog on film, television and nostalgia, named one of the Top 100 Film Studies Blog on the Net.

Monday, January 07, 2013

Ask JKM a Question #60: Found Footage Horror Film Recommendations?

A reader and frequent commenter, woodchuckgod, writes:

“While
I certainly enjoy good film (horror and otherwise), I've always had a bit of a
mental block about "found-footage" fare -- and as such, I can't
honestly say that I recall watching even one that featured it.

So
given that this sub-genre is bound to have both good and bad examples - where's
a good place to start? What are some of the finer examples of the form?”

Woodchuckgod, that’s a terrific question, especially since I’ve
been covering a lot of found footage horror movies in recent weeks.

I enjoy found-footage films tremendously for what they do
offer, and it’s also fair to note at this juncture what they don’t (frequently)
offer.

Found-footage films essentially accent or augment the experiential aspect of horror. The action feels very spontaneous, like it is
happening to you. The first-person
subjective camera and often hand-held approach forge a kind of immediacy that traditional film simply
can’t. This is cinema-verite on steroids
in other words.

The found-footage format has a number of drawbacks too.

The first and perhaps most significant limitation is that
found footage films can’t make full use of many aspects of the film grammar lexicon
because they are locked immutably into that P.O.V. perspective.

This means that, in some sense, found footage films eschew
the traditional artistry we associate with great horror films, all in the name
of immediacy and urgency. How you rate
that trade-off in approach is largely a personal matter, I would suggest.

Another way to put this: A traditional film, with the
capacity to freely use a variety of compositions and angles, is like an orchestra
playing. A found-footage film is like
one instrument playing alone, instead.
In the latter case, the effect can still be quite beautiful.

Second, found footage films, if done poorly, boast a problem
with the believability factor. Unless
a director is especially canny or the central situation especially compelling,
there comes a point in the worst found footage films when you begin to question
why an imperiled person feels compelled to film absolutely everything that
occurs. It doesn’t ring true with what
we know of human behavior in crisis situations.
At some point, recording an event becomes much less important than
ensuring personal survival.

Another limitation involves cutting. A found footage film with a camera as our
active and engaged “eye” in a crisis is our only perspective, unless there is
more than one camera available. This
limitation requires some good writing, because you can’t realistically or
easily change to another group of characters, or another location. Accordingly, found footage movies are largely
about sustaining suspense, and heightening suspense in what I call “pressure
cooker” situations.

My favorite and most highly-recommended found-footage film is
also one of the earliest and the most controversial: 1999’s The Blair Witch Project. I tend to think it’s a perfect place to start
any kind of study or survey of the sub-genre because few films have
accomplished more, creatively-speaking with the format.

In short, The Blair Witch Project finds a way
both to include the immediate, urgent aspects of its first person perspective
at the same time that it finds a way to function artistically.

When you break it down, The Blair Witch Project is a movie
about how we see, and the filters or
barriers we erect between us and the rest of the world. Even a camera -- an eye essentially -- can only
capture what it captures, if you’ll excuse my wording. Audiences (foolishly)
complained about The Blair Witch Project because they don’t see the Witch in the
film and, in fact, don’t know if a witch is present at all.

Of course, that’s the point of the film.

Just because you have a camera in record mode doesn’t mean
that it is going to see what is “there.”

So the movie becomes a meditation on perception and judgment, and the
ways that the presence of a camera can protect us, trick us, and delude us,
even. I think this idea has come much
more into focus since 9/11.

The Blair Witch Project is also exceptionally clever
because two of its three main characters carry cameras, which allow for
frequent switches in viewpoint, perspective and visualization.

Likewise, the film doesn’t’ always show “everything” that
happens. At various points the camera
only is activated after a major event has happened, and that approach seems to
reflect life much more closely than, for instance, Paranormal Activity,
where ghostly events occur center frame, and in extreme close-up JUST SO YOU DON’T MISS ANYTHING.

Another brilliant found-footage film that I might similarly
recommend as a starting point is [REC] (2007), a foreign language
horror film concerning a TV news anchor and camera man trapped in an apartment
building during the beginning, crucial hours of a zombie apocalypse.

The film boasts subtitles, of course, but the situation it
diagrams is universal, so there’s no problem, really, with a language barrier. The whole feeling of the film is of being
trapped -- like a rat in a cage --
and trying to survive against seemingly impossible odds and continuously
escalating odds. I don’t argue the movie
is as self-reflexive or genuinely artistic as The Blair Witch Project
is, but it is a good, scary, straightforward introduction to the form of found
footage.

If you fear the side-effect of vertigo -- which is actually a
big deal for many prospective viewers -- it might be best to start with a film
that employs limited or sporadic found-footage techniques first. Lovely Molly (2012), from one of The
Blair Witch Project directors would be a prime candidate if that’s the
way you decide to go.

So, I recommend The Blair Witch Project and [REC]
first and foremost, though Cloverfield (2008) offers a fresh
and ingenious take on old movie monster aesthetics.

Please let us know which film you decide to start with, and
how it goes for you. I know I’m curious
about it….

3 comments:

I still think that you have to recommend 'Paranormal Activity' as a top tier found footage film. If the 'Blair Witch Project' is to the found-footage craze of the 2000's as 'Halloween' was to the slasher film craze of 1980's,(which I think is fair)..... then 'Paranormal Activity' is analogous to 'Friday the 13th'.

'The Last Exorcism' was an effective entry. 'Cloverfield' was cool in that it was interesting in seeing what a big-budget, J.J Abrams production could bring to the genre. I enjoyed 'ReC', I would recommend it, but it is far from one of my personal favorites.I would even recommend the cheaply made, but imo, effective 'Evil Things' as a quality entry. However, I readily admit, I am biased as found-footage is one of my favorite types of horrors.

While I don't have a huge vertigo thing (and if I did, I think Irreversible immunized me against it), I'm going to screen Lovely Molly first, I think - though admittedly that has more to do with it being streamable via Netflix so I don't have to wait for a disc to arrive.

I've added the other titles to the queue however (as well as Trent's & Troy's). Thanks, much - all!

About John

award-winning author of 27 books including Horror Films FAQ (2013), Horror Films of the 1990s (2011), Horror Films of the 1980s (2007), TV Year (2007), The Rock and Roll Film Encyclopedia (2007), Mercy in Her Eyes: The Films of Mira Nair (2006),, Best in Show: The Films of Christopher Guest and Company (2004), The Unseen Force: The Films of Sam Raimi (2004), An Askew View: The Films of Kevin Smith (2002), The Encyclopedia of Superheroes on Film & Television (2004), Exploring Space:1999 (1997), An Analytical Guide to TV's Battlestar Galactica (1998), Terror Television (2001), Space:1999 - The Forsaken (2003) and Horror Films of the 1970s (2002).

Follow by Email

What the Critics Say...

"...some of the best writing about the genre has been done by John Kenneth Muir. I am particularly grateful to him for the time and attention he's paid to things others have overlooked, under-appreciated and often written off. His is a fan's perspective first, but with a critic's eye to theme and underscore, to influence and pastiche..." - Chris Carter, creator of The X-Files, in the foreword to Horror Films FAQ (October 2013).

"Hands down, John Kenneth Muir is one of the finest critics and writers working today. His deep analysis of contemporary American culture is always illuminating and insightful. John's film writing and criticism is outstanding and a great place to start for any budding writer, but one should also examine his work on comic books, TV, and music. His weighty catalog of books and essays combined with his significant blog production places him at the top of pop culture writers. Johns work is essential in understanding the centrality of culture in modern society." - Professor Bob Batchelor, cultural historian and Executive Director of the James Pedas Communication Center at Thiel College (2014).

"...an independent film scholar, [Muir] explains film studies concepts in a language that is reader-friendly and engaging..." (The Hindu, 2007)"...Muir's genius lies in his giving context to the films..." (Choice, 2007)